They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.

Skr:They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.

Yup, Taylor Kitsch wasn't the problem with John Carter. Also, apparently the budget for John Carter got blown up so much because director Andrew Stanton thought he was still directing a Pixar CGI film and had re-shoot after re-shoot after re-shoot to get the 'best shots'. You can do that kind of stuff with a CGI movie, where re-posing the characters, changing the camera angles, ect., is time intensive, but doesn't cost much; it's another matter entirely to re-shoot live action scenes continuously.

Also, the fact that so many movies and stories have borrowed/evolved out of the John Carter stories, the less sci-fi-educated public only saw things they had seen before in other movies.

/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'

Haven't seen Savages, but Taylor Kitsch was not the problem with John Carter or Battleship.

The crappy advertising and haphazard storyline screwed up John Carter. 'John Carter' tells me nothing about the movie. They should have kept the title and storyline as 'A Princess of Mars'.

As for Battleship, it was a perfectly serviceable action movie linked to a board game no-one gives a damn about. At least Transformers has followers from the 80's etc, what does Battleship bring with it?

Articles like this are just hit pieces designed to assassinate somebody's career. The article writer is either a parrot or a hired gun.

I wonder who Taylor Kitsch pissed off. I thought John Carter was better than most of the crap coming out of hollywood these days and everybody I know who saw it enjoyed it. That didn't stop the bad press from coming out even before the movie came out.

I saw the first negative article on Yahoo which is not surprising because their whole writing staff seems to be available to the highest bidder to write hit pieces on any subject.

I think he was EXACTLY the problem with John Carter. I watched the flick with an open mind, I figured it's got alien civilizations and stuff, and hell I even read some of those books as a kid.

But he is a black hole of charisma. Imagine someone like Harrison Ford in his prime in that role. You'd be hooked. He mostly exists to stare pensively and look pretty and apparently some people in Hollywood thought that could carry huge blockbusters. It doesn't. The man has no personality, he's a blank slate.

I got bored about 1/3 of the way through John Carter and started cleaning up the place, that's how dull it was.

RoyFokker'sGhost:Skr: They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.

Yup, Taylor Kitsch wasn't the problem with John Carter. Also, apparently the budget for John Carter got blown up so much because director Andrew Stanton thought he was still directing a Pixar CGI film and had re-shoot after re-shoot after re-shoot to get the 'best shots'. You can do that kind of stuff with a CGI movie, where re-posing the characters, changing the camera angles, ect., is time intensive, but doesn't cost much; it's another matter entirely to re-shoot live action scenes continuously.

Also, the fact that so many movies and stories have borrowed/evolved out of the John Carter stories, the less sci-fi-educated public only saw things they had seen before in other movies.

/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'

...I think I'd have to biatch-slap a mother with an Ono-Sendai if I ever heard them say that. Also; aside from The Call of Cthulhu, the greatest single opening line in any story, ever:

I really would love that "article" writer's job. How the fark is this even considered writing? type up a dozen or so facts without any reference or real context and voila paid for "work". I probably have more words on my grocery list than there are in this "article".

Anyway, John Carter was horribly advertised, named, and really very little of the book. It had none of the epicness of the books, it was advertised during mom shows and to 90% of america John Carter is on ER not Mars.

Battleship should have been something akin to wargames, I never saw aliens on my BS board.

Another problem is that movies are no longer cultural events the way they were in the 1970s and earlier when every other movie made a major statement about life, the world or society. The only people Hollywood makes movies for today are comic-book fans. Spike Lee said in an interview recently that he couldn't have made "Malcolm X" and Oliver Stone couldn't have made "JFK" today because neither wore tights and a cape.

Ugh, I hate these WHITHER HOLLYWOOD? portions of the articles by Chicken Littles who can only wax nostalgic for film movements from 40 years ago. Spike Lee barely got Malcolm X made anyway and it was after he had a string of commercial successes. Same with Oliver Stone.

Lith:I really would love that "article" writer's job. How the fark is this even considered writing? type up a dozen or so facts without any reference or real context and voila paid for "work". I probably have more words on my grocery list than there are in this "article".

Anyway, John Carter was horribly advertised, named, and really very little of the book. It had none of the epicness of the books, it was advertised during mom shows and to 90% of america John Carter is on ER not Mars.

Battleship should have been something akin to wargames, I never saw aliens on my BS board.

Savages, from the promos reminded me of The Way of the Gun so meh.

"This one movie was a flop. Another movie was also a flop! Do you remember that movie from a few years ago? A flop! Taylor Kitsch is bad at career."

RoyFokker'sGhost:Skr: They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.

Yup, Taylor Kitsch wasn't the problem with John Carter. Also, apparently the budget for John Carter got blown up so much because director Andrew Stanton thought he was still directing a Pixar CGI film and had re-shoot after re-shoot after re-shoot to get the 'best shots'. You can do that kind of stuff with a CGI movie, where re-posing the characters, changing the camera angles, ect., is time intensive, but doesn't cost much; it's another matter entirely to re-shoot live action scenes continuously.

Also, the fact that so many movies and stories have borrowed/evolved out of the John Carter stories, the less sci-fi-educated public only saw things they had seen before in other movies.

/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'

I can practically smell the Cheetos and virginity eminating from this post.

I can't keep track of all the Taylors, it's killin' me. Now I have to be careful not to mix up Taylor Kitsch with Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, Taylor Hicks, Taylor Dayne, Taylor Momsen or Taylor Hanson. Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, why do so many people have that name, chicks AND dudes?

Mugato:EyeballKid: Mugato: Battleship made a lot of money overseas, easily made a profit. It's problem was that some genius thought it was a good idea to release it between The Avengers and Spider-Man.

Late summer "all the blockbusters have come out but school hasn't started back up yet" time or late November / early december "get the husband / husband and kids* out of my hair so I can do Christmas shopping" time

*Assuming it's as family friendly as I expect it to be, what with the MB license and all.

SurfaceTension:Talk about the biggest flops of all time, and nary a mention of Waterworld? What's this world coming to?

Contrary to popular belief Waterworld was not a flop. It grossed 265 million against a 175 million budget. Not a blockbuster, probably in the red, but not a flop that lost hundreds of millions, especially considering action figures (yes it had them) and tv/VHS rights.

mjbok:SurfaceTension: Talk about the biggest flops of all time, and nary a mention of Waterworld? What's this world coming to?

Contrary to popular belief Waterworld was not a flop. It grossed 265 million against a 175 million budget. Not a blockbuster, probably in the red, but not a flop that lost hundreds of millions, especially considering action figures (yes it had them) and tv/VHS rights.

Yeah, Waterworld is actually more known for being an over-bloated production than a "flop". A $175mill budget was unheard of in 1995 and Spielberg warned Coster against shooting on the ocean (and he should know).

B.L.Z. Bub:I can't keep track of all the Taylors, it's killin' me. Now I have to be careful not to mix up Taylor Kitsch with Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, Taylor Hicks, Taylor Dayne, Taylor Momsen or Taylor Hanson. Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, why do so many people have that name, chicks AND dudes?

I am no insider, but I read a lot of dumb books written by people who are safely out of the INDUSTRY and you usually take the cost of a movie and double it to account for PR/marketing/prints/EEE TEEEEE SEEEEEE to come up with the real amount it cost.

John Carter was a good movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it, having read the books as a child. I felt they did a good adaption, and I knew they'd get the look and feel right with CGI advances. I was actually excited to see it and saw it opening weekend. I was not disappointed. They changed some things up a little, but the story was still there, and the Princess was farking h0tt!!!

The movie failed because of the lack of advertising and the complete failure of the advertising that was out there. As I recall, it had a bunch of slow mo shots of John Carter leaping around Mars over Led Zeppelin's Kashmir. I have no idea what angle they were going with that, but it was just wrong. I knew the story they were going to tell and couldn't figure out if they were going to get it or not from those promos. Complete failure in advertising.

I'm sure there's a fan video on youtube somewhere that did much better, but like the advertising company, I'm just too lazy to make the effort.

B.L.Z. Bub:I can't keep track of all the Taylors, it's killin' me. Now I have to be careful not to mix up Taylor Kitsch with Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, Taylor Hicks, Taylor Dayne, Taylor Momsen or Taylor Hanson. Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, why do so many people have that name, chicks AND dudes?

I'm pretty sure you can cross off at least 4 or 5 of those names as people you need to keep track of.

And yeah, you can probably pin it on this Taylor Kitsch dude. He has the charisma of a hat rack. Even then, it wasn't just him - one of the key ingredients for a good action movie is a memorable villain. The villains in John Carter were dull and bland. Hence. BORING.

Put it this way - I remember that the main villain from the Avengers off the top of my head was Loki and that he was played by Tom Hiddleston who has pretty much been in fark all. But I remember him. I even remember what he looked like, which is pretty key in a movie filled with some real hollywood heavyweights.

I had to go to IMDB to try and piece together who the main bad guy from John Carter was. I think it's the dude 5th from the top billing. It's certainly not Willem Dafoe, even though he's evidently in this movie. I think he was one of the aliens. Why put Willem Dafoe in a movie and then not use him as the bad guy? This movie was boring and it wore it's pants on it's head, so it was retarded as well.

And yeah, you can probably pin it on this Taylor Kitsch dude. He has the charisma of a hat rack. Even then, it wasn't just him - one of the key ingredients for a good action movie is a memorable villain. The villains in John Carter were dull and bland. Hence. BORING.

Put it this way - I remember that the main villain from the Avengers off the top of my head was Loki and that he was played by Tom Hiddleston who has pretty much been in fark all. But I remember him. I even remember what he looked like, which is pretty key in a movie filled with some real hollywood heavyweights.

I had to go to IMDB to try and piece together who the main bad guy from John Carter was. I think it's the dude 5th from the top billing. It's certainly not Willem Dafoe, even though he's evidently in this movie. I think he was one of the aliens. Why put Willem Dafoe in a movie and then not use him as the bad guy? This movie was boring and it wore it's pants on it's head, so it was retarded as well.

Stop saying it "was good". It wasn't.

You're like my friend The Movie Snob. Because he used to be a projectionist at a movie theater about 15 years ago, he believes he is some mentat of the movies. He tears down movies for no good reason, pointing out inane things, 'unrealistic' action, and the like.

The difference, though, is you're g-damned right about John Carter and the main villain. Like I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and though I know the bad guy because I read the books as s child, I cannot picture what he looked like in the movie.

This is pretty much my opinion of the guy from Avatar and Clash of the Ttitans. Completely unremarkable in every way. He's more like a stand-in than an actor. Like they were using him to set up the lighting and the actor never showed so they just said, "fark it, use him".

Mugato:This is pretty much my opinion of the guy from Avatar and Clash of the Ttitans. Completely unremarkable in every way. He's more like a stand-in than an actor. Like they were using him to set up the lighting and the actor never showed so they just said, "fark it, use him".

Mugato:This is pretty much my opinion of the guy from Avatar and Clash of the Ttitans. Completely unremarkable in every way. He's more like a stand-in than an actor. Like they were using him to set up the lighting and the actor never showed so they just said, "fark it, use him".

The whole point of a Sam Worthington is to cast a bland, unremarkable person so that viewers can more easily project themselves into the lead role.